Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-5-2026 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board  February 5, 2026 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on February 5, 2026 at 5:00 PM in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina.    Members Present      Cameron Moore, Chair    Pete Avery, Vice Chair Clark Hipp   Kaitlyn Rhonehouse   Kevin Hine Andy Hewitt Shemeka Kemp Members Absent  Staff Present   Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney    Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor   Zachary Dickerson, Senior Development Planner Amy Doss, Development Review Planner Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 5 P.M. and welcomed the audience. Approval of Minutes The minutes from the Planning Board’s Regular meeting on January 8th, 2026, and Agenda Review Meeting Minutes for January 6th, 2026, were presented for consideration and approval. With no discussion, Mr. Hipp MOTIONED approving the meeting minutes. It was SECONDED by Mr. Avery, and the minutes were approved, 6-0. (Mr. Hine had not arrived.) Chair Moore announced that the items discussed during the meeting would advance to the County Commissioners’ meeting tentatively scheduled for Monday March 16th, 2026. The Planning Board representative will be Kevin Hine. Chair Moore reminded the Board of the Code of Ethics, emphasizing that board members must avoid conflicts of interest, maintaining integrity and independence in their roles and asked if any member had any known conflicts of interest regarding the matters on the agenda. Board member Kevin Hine arrived at 5:05 PM. Regular Business Public Hearing Rezoning Request (Z25-18) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Leo Nguyen, property owners, to rezone approximately 1.16 acres located at 7244 Carolina Beach Road and 825 Red Lighthouse Lane from R-15, Residential to a (CZD) R-5, Residential Moderate-High Density district for a maximum of 8 attached single-family dwelling units. This item continued from the January 8, 2026, regular meeting. Associate Planner, Amy Doss, presented the overview for the rezoning request. She explained that the applicant had submitted a revised concept plan reducing the total number of attached dwelling units from nine to eight. She described the subject property as located along Carolina Beach Road, bordered on three sides by R-15 zoning with B-2 zoning across the roadway. Aerial imagery and photographs were shown depicting the vacant site and surrounding residential and commercial development. Ms. Doss reviewed the original concept plan, including access from Red Lighthouse Lane, attached housing types, guest parking, open space, tree preservation areas, sidewalk locations, stormwater facilities, and both proposed and existing access easements. She then outlined the revisions, noting the reduction in units, modification of the building near the entrance to a duplex, the addition of a sidewalk along the northern stretch of road, and the inclusion of a 10-foot Type A opaque transitional buffer behind several units. Ms. Doss stated that the development would provide right-in, right-out access to Carolina Beach Road and that projected peak hour trips remain below the threshold requiring a Traffic Impact Analysis. The proposal was expected to generate approximately two additional students. She explained that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the property as Community Mixed Use, which supports small-scale mixed-use development patterns and residential densities between 8 and 15 dwelling units per acre. Staff determined the proposal is consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and incorporated conditions intended to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. Staff recommended approval with eight conditions related to building height, tree preservation, lighting, parking, and access, and noted that the project will undergo further Technical Review Committee review if approved. Cindee Wolfe, representing the applicant, stated that the team returned with additional information that had been requested by the Board at the previous meeting. She briefly recapped the proposal and emphasized that the proposal’s primary objective was to secure safer access through Red Lighthouse Lane, which includes a proper turn lane, deceleration taper, and right-in, right-out configuration located at a safer distance from the arterial intersection. Ms. Wolfe noted that the plan was revised from nine to eight units, sidewalks had been provided in accordance with code requirements, and details related to buffering, fencing, and yard standards had been addressed. In response to prior concerns regarding access through Red Lighthouse Village, she explained that a petition was circulated among the 23 homeowners association members, attaching the revised plan and referencing a memorandum of understanding for a private access easement. She reported that 18 owners expressed support through signatures or written confirmation, three indicated opposition, and two did not respond. Chair Moore noted that there were members of the public signed up to speak in support of the project Stephanie Shear – 800 Red Lighthouse Lane Ms. Shear stated that she supported the proposed change with proper guidance, noting that Carolina Beach Road and the nearby curve were dangerous and that development was inevitable. She emphasized the need for further discussion regarding maintenance responsibilities and ensuring compliance with Red Lighthouse Village covenants if access was granted through Red Lighthouse Lane. Ms. Shear also expressed a preference for prohibiting short-term rentals, including VRBO-type uses or rentals of less than six months on Red Lighthouse Lane. Chair Moore noted that there were members of the public signed up to speak in opposition to the project. Robert Chaimowitz -821 Red Lighthouse Lane Mr. Chaimowitz, a 27-year resident of and former HOA board member and treasurer, spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that the neighborhood had functioned safely for decades with one way in and one way out and that opening it to additional access would create hazards. He raised concerns about emergency vehicle access, the location of a fire hydrant and electrical box near the proposed entrance, traffic control challenges, pedestrian and school bus safety, and the potential impact on the community’s private road and recent investments in paving and neighborhood improvements. Mr. Chaimowitz emphasized that many residents were unaware of the proposal, expressed frustration over the process, and urged that the neighborhood remain private and unchanged. Julie Thompson – 808 Little Pony Trail Ms. Thompson expressed concerns about both the safety of Carolina Beach Road and the process surrounding the proposed access to Red Lighthouse Lane. She referenced prior correspondence and meeting materials, stating that discussions about alternative access appeared to have occurred before the community information meeting, which raised concerns for her about transparency and the lack of recorded authorization for the proposed easement. Ms. Thompson emphasized traffic safety issues near the curve, existing drainage problems, school bus stop safety for children and grandchildren, and compatibility concerns related to adding multi-unit development within an area surrounded by single-family homes. Chair Moore opened the floor for the applicant’s rebuttal. Ms. Wolfe responded that the 30-foot buffer referenced by neighbors was existing Red Lighthouse Village common open space that would not be disturbed, and that the project would include fencing and screening along the property boundary without building or paving in the buffer. She stated that all access design elements, including driveway aprons and internal turning areas, would be reviewed through the Technical Review Committee process and would meet emergency vehicle standards, and that utility connections had been coordinated with Aqua Utilities. Ms. Wolfe also clarified that discussions with the Red Lighthouse Village HOA began after the community meeting, noted that 18 of 23 homeowners expressed willingness to support conditional access negotiations, and reiterated that access via Red Lighthouse Lane would be safer than alternatives while including agreements for maintenance, potential rental restrictions, and other negotiated conditions. Chair Moore opened the floor for the opposition’s rebuttal. Adrianne Garber Ms. Garber spoke in opposition and recounted a personal experience in which a vehicle that came from Carolina Beach Road struck and totaled her parked car near Lea Landing, emphasizing the dangers of the blind curve and lack of a deceleration lane. She questioned whether adequate traffic, parking, and site design considerations would be addressed through the review process, citing concerns about roadway capacity, emergency and service vehicle access, stormwater impacts, and compatibility with surrounding R-15 development. While acknowledging the proposal’s consistency with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan’s Community Mixed Use designation, she argued that denial would be reasonable and in the public interest due to safety concerns, infrastructure limitations, and the site’s incompatibility with adjacent neighborhoods. Tim Brunner Mr. Brunner stated that while the curve was dangerous and the proposed access through Red Lighthouse Village may be a smart solution, significant infrastructure improvements should occur before additional neighborhood development was approved. He expressed concern that broader planning efforts, including references to the 2050 Plan, do not adequately align with continued higher-density housing without corresponding infrastructure coordination between the state and county. Mr. Brunner cited problems experienced with the nearby Lea Landing development, including drainage and sewer issues that he said negatively affected adjacent property owners. He urged greater accountability and infrastructure planning before approving similar projects and questioned whether residents would be left addressing unresolved impacts on their own. Chair Moore closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. During the Board’s discussion, members acknowledged that the surrounding area included a mix of single-family and smaller-lot developments and generally expressed that the proposal was compatible with adjacent uses and represented a reasonable use of the property. Several members stated that while traffic along Carolina Beach Road was challenging, the projected trip generation from the development would be minimal and not a sufficient basis for denial, noting that specific design, access, and emergency vehicle requirements would be addressed through the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process. The Board also discussed prior concerns raised at the previous meeting, including sidewalk connectivity, HOA coordination, and road maintenance, and noted that conditions had been added to require documentation demonstrating legal access from Red Lighthouse Lane prior to TRC approval. Legal counsel clarified that the signatures submitted were not legally binding and that a recorded easement or formal legal agreement would be required to satisfy the condition, which staff confirmed would be reviewed as part of the TRC process. After Board discussion, Chair Moore asked Ms. Wolfe whether, based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, she would like to request a continuance, withdraw the item, or proceed with a vote. Ms. Wolfe responded that she wanted to proceed with a vote. Chair Moore MOVED, SECONDED by Mr. Avery, to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning. The Board found the request to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed housing type and density were within the range recommended by the Community Mixed Use place type and there were no concerns identified from a zoning or technical standpoint. The Board further found that recommending approval of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the project included conditions intended to mitigate impacts on adjacent properties. The approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. Structures were limited to a maximum building height of 35 feet. 2. The 21-inch DBH Water Oak located in the designated open space between Units Five and Six was required to be protected during construction and preserved. 3. Exterior luminaires, including security lighting, were required to be full cutoff fixtures directed downward in compliance with Figure 5.5.4.C of the Unified Development Ordinance. 4. Land uses were limited to dual unit attached, triplex, and quadraplex dwellings. 5. Each dwelling unit was required to include a one-car garage and a minimum of two exterior parking spaces on a private driveway parking pad, with at least four additional vehicle parking spaces provided beyond those required for each unit. 6. In addition to the 21-inch Water Oak, all other existing trees outside essential site improvements were required to be permanently retained on site. 7. A minimum 20-foot-wide public access easement was required to be dedicated along the frontage and parallel to Carolina Beach Road for future bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. 8. Prior to Technical Review Committee approval, the developer was required to provide documentation to New Hanover County Planning and Land Use demonstrating that the project had legal access from Red Lighthouse Lane, and that documentation was required to be reviewed and verified by the New Hanover County Attorney’s Office. The motion carried, 7-0. Other Items Chair Moore stated that following a robust discussion during agenda review regarding what constituted a complete application, he wanted to propose a more transparent approach for handling significant plan changes or new information submitted after the legal notice and Sunshine List had been issued. He expressed concern that late modifications could place the Board in a difficult position and potentially undermine public trust in the process. Chair Moore suggested that the Board adopt a general policy to only consider information included in the published legal notice, and that if substantial changes were made after notice, the public hearing should generally be continued to allow adequate public review, staff analysis, and full Board consideration. During Board discussion, members clarified that the concern was not whether an application was complete, as that responsibility rested with staff, but rather how to handle substantial plan modifications or new information submitted after public notice had been issued. Several members expressed concern that late changes could prevent staff and the public from properly reviewing proposals and could place the Board in an awkward position of voting on information that had not been vetted. The Board discussed the need for a consistent, fair approach that would preserve transparency and public trust, while still allowing flexibility for minor improvements that do not materially alter a proposal. Ultimately, the Board consensus was that their general policy would be to continue hearings when substantial changes occurred to proposals, though they would still retain discretion and flexibility. Destination 2050 Comprehensive Plan Ms. Roth reminded the Board that the Board of Commissioners’ hearing on the Destination 2050 Comprehensive Plan, previously postponed due to a canceled meeting, was rescheduled for February 16. She noted that Commissioners had indicated they would receive a staff presentation and public comment at that meeting but were unlikely to take final adoption action at that time. She also clarified that portions of the related text amendment not tied to the Comprehensive Plan would move forward on February 16, while the remaining portions would be deferred until after final adoption of the plan. Meeting adjourned at 6:19 PM